Possibly.
> I personally have no problem with incorporating the lists of abilities for
> a character. I think it gives interesting depth. In any case, I don't like
> to let my players get away without indicating what their relationships are
> from their keywords and if they match the personality type for the keyword.
> That "tailorable" stuff is, I think, pretty important for defining a
> character.
I do think that's important. I may take that idea of just not letting them not define personality traits that might be keyword related. If they later decide they want it, (we "discover" that she is greedy) then they should just pay for it as a separate trait.
> On the general subject, there's this problem with keyword generality and
> specificity.
All too true. (I had to make up a "Karse" keyword for my game, since it is such a unique locale, which led to a "Karse city guard" keyword.)
> I started a thread on The Forge a while back that went pretty long in
> discussing this, but I don't remember any specific recommendations that we
> came up with.
Nope. That's about the point where I checked out for a while online. I don't think we ever came up with anything solid.
> My general rule has been to allow any ability to be in a
> keyword as long as the player gives some fun reasoning for why "everybody"
> in some group that has the keyword has this specific ability. Make them pay
> for the boost in creativity.
A fine example of the "yes, but" principle at work. :)
LC
Powered by hypermail